[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1205860276.8872.20.camel@nimitz.home.sr71.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:11:16 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Sudhir Kumar <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, taka@...inux.co.jp,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][2/3] Account and control virtual address space
allocations
On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 06:44 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > If you're going to do this, I think you need a couple of phases.
> >
> > 1. update the vm_(un)acct_memory() functions to take an mm
>
> There are other problems
>
> 1. vm_(un)acct_memory is conditionally dependent on VM_ACCOUNT. Look at
> shmem_(un)acct_size for example
Yeah, but if VM_ACCOUNT isn't set, do you really want the controller
accounting for them? It's there for a reason. :)
The shmem_acct_size() helpers look good. I wonder if we should be using
that kind of things more generically.
> 2. These routines are not called from all contexts that we care about (look at
> insert_special_mapping())
Could you explain why "we" care about it and why it isn't accounted for
now?
-- Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists